Attorneys for Lawrence E. Mitchell, the Case Western Reserve University dean who has taken a leave of absence after being sued by a professor for alleged retaliation, have filed an emergency motion asking that a Cuyahoga County judge “strike certain immaterial, impertinent and scandalous allegations and materials” from complaints filed against Mr. Mitchell and the university.

They also assert that Professor Raymond Ku's “irrelevant and salacious allegations” are an outlet for the professor's disappointment about vying for, and losing, a deanship position that went to Mr. Mitchell, dean of the university's School of Law, and “to cover up and distract from his unsatisfactory performance.”

“The immaterial, impertinent and scandalous allegations are in no way relevant to the limited claim in this case as to whether Ku was retaliated against in his employment, are clearly prejudicial to Dean Mitchell, and must be immediately stricken from the court record to prevent even further harm to Dean Mitchell's reputation and goodwill,” their memorandum in support of the motion states.

“It's understandable that Mr. Mitchell would now want assertions regarding his own behavior hidden from scrutiny, but all he's doing is highlighting them. All allegations in the amended complaint have a good-faith factual basis and are relevant to the lawsuit — and we will respond accordingly with the Court.

“We now see the opening gestures of a desperate defense: blame the victim. Mr. Mitchell will never show you evidence that Professor Ku reported Mr. Mitchell's behavior for any reason other than to protect the Law School and University communities — and to comply with the University's mandatory sexual-harassment-reporting policy. Trying to manufacture some other motive shows desperation. No one is going to buy what they're now selling.

“The University's donors should know that it is their donations that are subsidizing attacks on the victim,” Mr. Chandra wrote.

'Gross abuse' of court process alleged

Mr. Mitchell's attorneys provide in their Nov. 7 filing a chart of nearly 30 allegations they are asking Judge Peter J. Corrigan to strike. They include the content of what the motion calls an “anonymous flyer,” attached to Mr. Ku's initial complaint, that contains claims that one of Mr. Mitchell's four divorces involved a former student of his and that he joked to Case faculty members that a Case graduate student “wasn't good for anything but keeping the bed warm.”

They argue that Mr. Ku's decision not to include the flyer in his amended complaint — filed Oct. 31 — “is telling as to the inappropriateness and unlawfulness of his initial attachment of it to the Original Complaint.”

They also ask the court to strike claims stating that university officials were aware of concerns about Mr. Mitchell's sexual behavior at another university, that student dinners were moved to an on-campus location from Mr. Mitchell's house because of concerns about Mr. Mitchell's “inappropriate behavior,” and that Mr. Mitchell propositioned a student for a “threesome.”

“This is a gross abuse of the Court process that should not be tolerated,” the emergency motion concludes.

Mr. Ku sued Mr. Mitchell and the university on Oct. 23, alleging that Mr. Mitchell and the university retaliated against him for reporting to the university alleged sexual harassment of women by the dean. Mr. Mitchell announced he would take a temporary leave of absence Nov. 6 to “allow the university to conduct its independent review of this matter.”

Mr. Mitchell has led the law school since 2011.

The university plans to announce an acting dean as soon as possible. It has identified key university officials to assist the School of Law in areas such as finance, admissions and fundraising, according to a letter sent to law school students on Nov. 6 and signed by Barbara R. Snyder, Case Western Reserve's president, and W.A. “Bud” Baeslack III, provost and executive vice president.

“We believe he made the right decision for the school, as it allows all of you to focus more squarely on the important work of learning — and gives your faculty and staff greater opportunity to concentrate on guiding and supporting you in preparing for your future,” the letter stated. “It also gives the dean the opportunity to concentrate more completely on his own situation. We regret the distractions you have experienced in recent weeks, as well as the sense of disruption this new transition may create.”

The letter also stated the university officials will schedule a meeting with students soon after they have made their leadership selection, “and look forward to hearing your thoughts and questions then.”

Independence questioned

Late Wednesday afternoon, Mr. Ku's attorney, Mr. Chandra, questioned the merits of the university's investigation. He said Ms. Snyder reiterated in a Nov. 6 meeting with law school faculty — at which Mr. Ku was present — that no retaliation took place.

“You can't claim to be doing an independent review of a situation where university officials ignored every prior complaint, and simultaneously prejudge the result of that review,” Mr. Chandra said an emailed statement.

The university this morning responded directly to that statement: “Even though the university investigated the reports received in 2011, it will undertake an additional review of all of the allegations raised in the lawsuit, including those already investigated, which is standard operating procedure when defending a claim of this nature. This is not the time or the place to litigate this matter. The university respects the legal process, and intends to defend this case vigorously.”

Reader Comments

Readers are solely responsible for the content of the comments they post here. Comments are subject to the site's terms and conditions of use and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or approval of Crain's Cleveland Business. Readers whose comments violate the terms of use may have their comments removed or all of their content blocked from viewing by other users without notification. Comments may be used in the print edition at editorial discretion.